Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the United States has always been a beacon of hope and opportunity for generations of people who come to our shores searching for what cannot be found in any other nation on Earth. Few of us here are not the heirs of immigrant determination to make a better life for families and loved ones--or to seek a safe haven from repression. Some of our colleagues in the House are themselves living proof that this Nation continues to be enriched by the strong immigrant community which is our heritage. However, Mr. Chairman, today the people of the United States are faced with a new challenge from which we cannot back away--the challenge of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. Each year our borders are flooded with many thousands of people who enter the U.S. undocumented, usually unskilled, often without the resources to provide for their own needs. Mr. Chairman, it is currently estimated that there are between 2 and 4 million illegal immigrants in the United States, with about 300,000 added to that number each year. I want to emphasize that these are estimates--the numbers could be even larger than the estimates. According to a study by the Rand Institute, one-half of all illegal immigrants enter the United States by crossing the land border. Many use fraudulent documents to derive benefits from social programs, thus depriving U.S. citizens, legal residents, and refugees who deserve these benefits and robbing taxpayers of millions of dollars. Twice this House has attempted to right this wrong. Twice President Clinton vetoed those attempts. Thousands of people each year blatantly disregard U.S. laws but are rewarded once they arrive here. This magnet of benefits draws people from all over the world who simply abuse the system with no intent on ever contributing. This is wrong. And once again we have the opportunity to address the issue. We must remain firm in our commitment to provide for those who are in need, to offer assistance to those who experience temporary setbacks. But we cannot simply be a well from which all may draw without ever giving back, or with no intention of ever leaving the well. But the welfare problem is only one symptom of the illegal immigration epidemic. Jobs of U.S. citizens and legal residents are affected by the number of illegal immigrants willing to work longer hours for lower wages. Illegal immigrants reduce the employment opportunities of low-skilled workers, and even of skilled workers in areas where the economy is already weak and opportunities less plentiful. According to a New York Times article by Roger Waldinger, a professor of sociology at U.C.L.A., says that the African-American community suffers the most from jobs lost to illegal immigration. Legal immigrants are also hurt by the growing influx of illegal immigrants, their opportunities decreased and the hopes they brought with them dimmed or extinguished. Many of these U.S. citizens and legal immigrants are then forced into dependency on social programs, increasing the cost that illegal immigration imposes on the American public. Not only does illegal immigration cost jobs, it also costs wages. Statistics show that low-skilled workers may experience as much as a 50 percent decline in real wages and that the growing number of illegal immigrants is leading to an increased wage gap between skilled and unskilled workers. I have in my office stacks of reports from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, documenting hundreds of illegal immigrants who are employed here illegally. The jobs they hold are jobs that rightfully belong to U.S. citizens and lawful residents. But there are more symptoms of this epidemic. U.S. prisons are overflowing with criminal aliens--and the vast majority of these are illegal immigrants. In addition to the stacks of reports from the INS which document the employment of illegal aliens, there are pages of reports on the growing number of illegal immigrants who are involved in criminal activity. Many of them enter our judicial and prison systems where, again, millions of dollars are spent on dealing with their criminal activities. Those who enter the United States illegally and who continue to violate our laws--especially those who by violence add to the growing problem of violent crime and fear in this country--do not deserve to stay here. Like other violent criminals, they have complete disregard for the values that U.S. citizens and legal immigrants hold dear and strive for each day. It is no secret that I support the plight of refugees who seek relief from oppression in their homelands. This empathy for people who love freedom is a basic tenet of our American tradition. But such empathy should not be confused with support for those--regardless of nationality--who would instill fear and terror on the law-abiding citizens of our Nation. I should also make clear that I do not mean to imply that most immigrants--or even most illegal immigrants--come here to commit violent crimes. Many undocumented immigrants are driven by the same economic and social factors that cause all of us to want to improve our situations in life. But the United States is first and foremost a nation of laws, and we have a right to insist on obedience to the law. Mr. Chairman, earlier I quoted the Rand Institute's figure that 50 percent of all illegal immigrants come to the U.S. by crossing our land border. We owe a word of support and commendation to the men and women who make up our border patrols and stave off hundreds of people who otherwise would have gotten into the United States without documentation. They place their lives on the line each day to protect the integrity of our borders. They are our first and best line of defense against illegal immigration. They are overworked and in need of more support. We must do everything we can to strengthen our border patrol and improve this first line of defense. The elimination of any epidemic calls for strong and decisive measures. This epidemic of illegal immigration demands the same. Eliminate the benefits that illegal immigrants receive when they arrive. Enforce and strengthen the laws which prohibit the hiring of illegal immigrants. Protect U.S. jobs for U.S. workers, especially for those who are most harmed when their jobs are given to illegal immigrants. Deal swiftly and decisively with criminal aliens through expedited deportation proceedings. These measures are only a start to address this epidemic. But we must start somewhere.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff]. He is one of the cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] a tenacious fighter for human rights who has been to the Sudan, People's Republic of China, Romania. He has been in prison camps. No one has fought harder on behalf of persecuted Christians, Jews, and others.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have always supported strengthening families and fair treatment for legal immigrants. Many people have waited for years to be reunited with their families,while others have blatantly disregarded U.S. policy and flooded our Nation with illegal immigrants. We must not place more restrictions on those who await reunification with their families. We must not go back on our promise to reunite the families of these law-abiding United States citizens with their parents, their children, brothers, and sisters who have waited for this day. Mr. Chairman, in support of the integrity of our Nation, of controlling illegal immigration, and encouraging the use of correct procedures for legal immigration, I strongly strongly support the Kim amendment, and hope that my colleagues will do so as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, many of us are supporting numerous sections of the bill before us because it is time to crack down on illegal immigration. It is therefore ironic and I believe very unfortunate that the very deepest cuts imposed by the bill as presently written is not on illegal immigrants, it is not even on legal immigrants, but it is on refugees. Refugees would be cut from an authorized level of 110,000 last year to 50,000 in 1998 and succeeding years, a reduction of 55 percent, compared to less than 25 percent for other legal immigrants. Mr. Chairman, the refugee cap would be a dramatic departure from U.S. human rights policy. As chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, the committee that has prime jurisdiction over our refugee policy, and also over the budget from the authorizing level perspective, and also over human rights in general around the world, I would submit that it would be a tragedy and just plain wrong to slash refugee admissions to the United States and to depart from what is now the current law adopted back in 1980 of an annual consultation between the Congress and the executive branch to prescribe the correct number of admissions for that year. Our first refugee laws were enacted just after World War II, when it became clear that we had effectively sentenced hundreds of Jewish refugees to death by forcing them back to Europe. The most dramatic instance was the voyage of the St. Louis, many of whose 1,000 passengers died in concentration camps after being excluded from the United States in 1939. Let us be very clear about what we are talking about. The four largest groups of refugees admitted to the United States are all people who are in deep trouble because they share our common values about human rights and freedom: First, Jews and evangelical Christians and Ukrainian Catholics from the former Soviet Union. There has been a lot of talk about how these people are not really refugees. But my subcommittee and also the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I also chair, has held several hearings on the resurgence of repression aimed at people of faith and people who, just because they are Jews or Christians or evangelicals, find themselves at the wrong end of their government. Mr. Chairman, those hearings made it crystal clear that it is not the time now to stop worrying about resurgent anti-Semitism and ultra- nationalism. The communists may be back in power. We heard from Mr. Kovalev, Yeltsin's human rights leader, but sacked because of his criticisms in Chechnya. Just a couple of weeks ago, he came to our commission, he is still a member of the Duma, and he said within 6 months democracy could be lost in Russia. Recently the President of Belarus stated that modern governments had a lot to learn from Adolf Hitler. 2000 Second, Mr. Chairman, are old soldiers and religious refugees from places like Vietnam. These are the people who served years in reeducation camps for their pro-American and pro-democracy activities. There are many thousands of them still in the pipeline, but the proposed refugee cap would effectively require that the Vietnamese refugee program be shut down. I have been to the camps in Southeast Asia and looked into the eyes of these people who fought with us in Vietnam. Yet, they are on line to be forcibly repatriated, minimally the cap keeps open that possibility of bringing them here or to some other country of asylum. These people are our friends and they are our former allies. They risked their lives for freedom, and Americans do not abandon those who risk their lives for freedom. Mr. Chairman, the next largest refugee groups are victims of ethnic cleansing, in Bosnia, in the few thousand refugees again, mostly political prisoners, and persecuted Christians who we managed to get out of Cuba every year. The refugee camp would almost certainly require cuts in these groups as well. Opponents of this amendment complain that refugees cost money. Well, everything costs some money. But again we are talking about a humanitarian pro-human rights policy that helps those who are fleeing tyranny, who have a well-founded fear of persecution. We ought not remove the welcome mat to these very important people. Mr. Chairman, finally, this amendment is backed by a whole large number of individuals and organizations, like the United States Catholic Conference, the Council of Jewish Federations, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Church World Services, the U.S. Committee for Refugees, Americans for Tax Reform, the Family Research Council, and the list goes on and on. I urge support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], one of the cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act, includes many important provisions to help the United States get control of its borders: 5,000 new border patrol agents over 5 years, stricter penalties for alien smuggling and document fraud, prohibitions of public assistance, and procedural reforms that would make it easier to deport people who have abused our hospitality. I commend the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Smith, for his work on this and even when we disagree, he is always a very fine gentleman and its fair about that. The bill also contains some controversial provisions that would sharply reduce both family-based and employment-based immigration. I frankly think we should concentrate our efforts on illegal immigrants, and I wish the bill had even gone further in that direction; for example, by taking steps toward getting control of the situation in which people come to the United States on short-term tourist or business visas and then overstay their visas, living and working in the United States as illegal immigrants. On balance, I support many of the provisions of H.R. 2202, precisely because it takes strong steps in controlling illegal immigration. I do want to point out that I will be strongly supporting on the floor the Chrysler-Berman-Brownback amendment which will help keep the focus on stopping illegal immigration by separating these issues from the provisions controlling and concerning legal immigrants and visas and refugee. H.R. 2202 and the amendment that Mr. Chrysler hopes to offer would eliminate the small number of visas now allocated for brothers and sisters. Just let me say I also, as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, and we have jurisdiction over the refugee budget, will be offering my own amendment that would lift the cap of 50,000 refugees after the fiscal year 1997. We have held extensive hearings in my subcommittee on the refugee situation. I do believe that consultation process between the administration and the Congress ought to be the modality used, not a cap. I think that the world is getting more volatile, not less, and doing our fair share to relieve the pressure on true refugees, people who have a well-founded fear of persecution, we ought to not cap it, and continue the consultation process.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise the body that the gentleman's statement a moment ago was entirely wrong. There is nothing authorizing or providing for population control funds in this bill either way. It simply is silent on the issue. There is no foreign aid in this bill. That was dropped at the insistence of the Democrats during the House-Senate conference committee, and it would have led to a filibuster beyond any doubt on the Senate side had we insisted that be in there. So it was dropped. It is not there. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of my remarks this evening to my Democratic colleagues, because, frankly, I am astonished again by some of the disinformation going on about what is in the bill or not in the bill. I am also a little bit hurt by the suggestion this was not a bipartisan bill. The budget savings in the consolidation provisions are there, but they have been modified. There has been compromise with a capital ``C'' with regards to this bill to meet what we thought were the administration's objections. But the goal posts keep moving back. Let me speak primarily, however, to the human rights provisions which we have worked very, very hard in my Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights and in the full committee with the leadership of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. Opposition to the violation of fundamental human rights is not a partisan issue, and this bill contains stronger human rights provisions than any previous foreign relations authorization act that I have seen on this floor during my 16 years as a Member of this House. Frankly, they were even stronger when the bill passed the House, but we had to moderate some of them and we dropped others to meet the objections of the administration. I am very pleased that the Humanitarian Corridors Act is in this report. I offered that bill as a freestanding bill and as an amendment to the bill when it came up. It seems to me a very modest proposal to say that those countries that receive U.S. foreign assistance cannot impede or inhibit or proscribe the transiting of humanitarian aid to another country. I speak, of course, to Turkey and the fact they have disallowed humanitarian assistance to Armenia. It is important if we have relations and provide foreign aid that we say to our allies, allow these medicines and other kinds of assistance to get to our friends in Armenia. There is also the McBride Principles championed by our good and distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. That is in here. I just notice and would say parenthetically, Mr. Clinton just got the Irishman-of-the-Year award. He should not veto this bill. This will be the first time we codify the McBride Principles that many of us have talked about. Now we are going to do something about it in this legislation. There is also an authority to provide the Special Envoy to Tibet. It is not mandatory. I think it is a step forward in the right direction, so that human rights can be further recognized in that very troubled region of the world. The Migration and Refugee Assistance provisions come under our subcommittee. We, after hearings and hearing from all of the refugee community, have decided that it was very important that we hold harmless the refugee budget. The world is awash with refugees. We have to at least provide, I think, this modest amount of money to provide for them. There is $671 million in each of the fiscal years for refugee programs, $500,000 higher than the administration's 1996 request, and substantially higher than the estimates that the administration's requests were based on for 1997. So we held those refugee assistance accounts harmless. There is also allocation of funds for certain Burmese refugees and for the resettlement of refugees to Israel. They are carried over from the prior year. We have also authorized such funds that are necessary for the resettlement of certain Southeast Asia refugees in the high risk categories identified by the Lautenberg amendment, primarily those that served with the United States forces in the former government of South Vietnam, religious refugees and members of the Hmong ethnic minority from Laos. Subsection 1104(b) prohibits expenditures on programs involving repatriation to Vietnam, to Laos or Cambodia, unless the remaining asylum seekers have been or will be interviewed by United States immigration officers, and unless resettlement offers have been made or will be made to those found to be refugees under United States law. This provision was modified in conference to make it clear that the refugee status interviews can, under certain circumstances, be held in the asylum seeker's country of origin. This is to accommodate the administration's so-called Track Two plan for interviews in Vietnam. This plan will only work if we can somehow guarantee the safety of the asylum seekers during the interview process. We are not there yet, but this provision, which did pass the House 266 to 156 in a broad bipartisan vote, will help us with those boat people, so that we close out the comprehensive plan of action with honor and kindness, and not cruelty. The section on the Cuban immigration policies, and this is I think very timely, Mr. Chairman, this would require periodic reports on the Cuban Government's methods of enforcing its 1994 and 1995 anti- immigration agreements with the United States, and on the treatment of persons returned by the United States to Cuba. section 1252, extension of certain adjudication provisions Mr. Speaker, this section extends the Lautenberg amendment, which identifies certain high-risk refugee categories and provides that applicants in these categories are presumed to be refugees if they assert both a fear of persecution and a credible basis for their fear of persecution. The high-risk categories include nationals or residents of an independent state of the former Soviet Union or Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania who are Jews or evangelical Christians, as well as certain Southeast Asians. (See section 1104 above.) The provision would also extend until October 1, 1997, the Attorney General's ability to adjust the status of aliens who are nationals of an independent state of the former Soviet Union, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia and were granted parole into the United States after August 14, 1988, to the status of aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence. section 1253, U.S. policy regarding the involuntary return of refugees The House-passed provision would have provided that no funds authorized by this act be used for the involuntary return of any person to a country in which he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution. This provision has been modified to meet DOS concerns. The conference provision omits the prohibition against using DOS funds to assist or promote such returns--to meet the argument that the House-passed provision might have been violated if a DOS official made a phone call. Also, the provision is now limited to refugee accounts, not all DOS accounts. The effect of this provision, therefore, is to provide that funds for refugee protection may not be used to forcibly repatriate people unless it has been determined that they are not refugees. section 1255, persecution for resistance to coercive population control methods This section would provide that forced abortion, forced sterilization, or persecution for resistance to such measures are persecution on account of political opinion within the meaning of the refugee definition in the Immigration and Nationality Act. It would effectively reinstate the prior interpretation of the law, which was reversed by an INS order on August 5, 1994. sec. 1256, u.s. policy with respect to the involuntary return of persons subjected to torture This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized by this act in the involuntary return of any person to a place in which he or she is in serious danger of subjection to torture. This provision has been substantially modified to meet DOS concerns. The section now specifically subjects the definition of torture to all reservations, understandings, etc., adopted by the United States when it ratified the Convention Against Torture. The conference also eliminated the assist or promote language to which DOS objected. (See section 1254 above.) sec. 1304, responsibilities of bureau charged with refugees The House-passed provision would have established. This provision would have established a coordinator for human rights and refugees within the Office of the Secretary of State. It would also have established a statutory bureau of Refugee and Migration assistance. Under the House provision, the coordinator for human rights and refugees would supervise the Bureau of Refugee and Migration Assistance and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and would report directly to the Secretary of State. The conference substantially modified this provision to meet DOS concerns. The Department had argued that human rights and refugee protection are distinct functions requiring two separate bureaus, and also that the institution of a co- ordinator who reported to the Secretary rather than an Undersecretary might have the unintended effect of isolating these bureaus. The conference therefore modified the provision to specify only that the bureau with responsibility for refugee and migration and refugee assistance be independent of the bureau charged with responsibility for population policy. The department can, of course, still maintain a population office in another bureau, as it did prior to 1993. The present provision is designed to reinforce the principle that refugees are linked primarily to human rights problems, not demographic problems. Related human rights issues: sec. 1102(e), limitation on funding for undp programs in burma Reduces funding to the UNDP in each fiscal eyar by the estimated cost of UNDP projects in and for Burma, unless the President certifies that all such projects are directed toward the needs of the poor; are conducted through international or private voluntary organizations independent of the SLORC; do not benefit the SLORC; and are endorsed by the democratic leadership of the Burmese people. sec. 1408, conduct of certain exchange programs This section requires that exchanges with countries whose people do not enjoy freedom and democracy be carried out in cooperation with human rights and pro-democracy leaders in these countries. The administration successfully argued for the deletion of language that would have extended eligibility for scholarships and exchanges in such countries--including China, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, and East Timor-- to exiles from these countries. sec. 1410, educational and cultural exchanges for tibetans and burmese This section carries over a provision of prior law to require that exiles from these countries be eligible for scholarships and exchange programs. In the absence of this provision, exiles would be excluded from eligibility for such programs, and the selection process would necessarily be conducted in cooperation with the regimes that rule Burma and Tibet. sec. 1611, reports to congress on bosnia and herzegovina This section requires periodic reports on human rights protection under the Dayton agreement, the status of refugees, and the treatment of the Albanian ethnic majority in Serb-held Kosova. Mr. Speaker, we have heard about how this bill is pro-fiscal responsibility. It is also pro-human rights. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the conference report.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I just hope my colleagues, particularly those who may be listening to this debate back in their offices, are very clear that there is nothing in this bill that authorizes population control funding. There is no policy guidance either way. The Mexico City policy is not in here. I wish it had been, but it is not, and I would like to ask my friends on the Democratic side, perhaps the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], if he can just clarify so that everyone knows, when the Democratic substitute was offered in the conference committee, did it have language in it dealing with the population issue, did it authorize population or not? My understanding was it simply did not have section C, which is exactly what the conference report of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] does not have, so that there is no authorization, population is not advanced, it is not pushed backwards. It is simply not in this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Let me make it very clear, Mr. Speaker. I offered during the time that we were in the conference committee, and this really fleshed out where some people, particularly on the proabortion side, is on family planning. We would be more than happy to life any percentage restriction on population provided it has the very principled Mexico City policy that says no organization that performs abortions except for rape, incest or life of the mother gets money.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, very briefly, we have tried to make this bipartisan. I have had markups in my subcommittee, because much of this is from my subcommittee. We had no-shows at the subcommittee markups. At full committee we had lack of participation, and the same thing happened in the House-Senate conference committee. The substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the Democratic alternative, said exactly what this bill says on the issue of population control, nothing. His bill said it, our bill says it, nothing, so it is not an issue here. The issue of isolationist is absurd. When you have groups backing provisions of this bill like the United Israel Appeal, the American Jewish Committee, the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, and a whole host of other groups, this is not an isolationist bill at all.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman what in the Taiwan Relations Act does he object to? In the language passed duly by the Congress, it is the law of our land. What does the gentleman object to?

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me this time. I urge Members to support this rule. It is a good rule, and it is a very good, comprehensive conference report that we have put together. It has taken our subcommittee and the full committee the better part of a year and a half, working with the Senate, to craft this legislation. There were delays, as I think many Members know, on the Senate side, regrettably, but thankfully we are going to have this bill presented to the whole House very shortly. H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorizations Act for 1996 and 1997 has attracted attention, Mr. Speaker, including a veto threat from the Clinton administration, because it would require the consolidation of at least one Government agency and because it would save $1.7 billion over 4 years. I think it is important that, with the taxpayers clamoring for downsizing throughout the Federal bureaucracy, that the State Department and other agencies of our foreign policy apparatus not be immune to the budget-cutting knife. Amid the discussion of these issues, however, some of the most important aspects of H.R. 1561 have gone almost unnoticed. Specifically, despite the need to cut spending and consolidate programs, the conference report manages to hold harmless, and at times even enhances, the most important programs and to enact important policy provisions that will indeed support freedom, democracy, and save lives. Mr. Speaker, in considering H.R. 1561, I hope we will carefully consider the following human rights provisions: First, Mr. Speaker, the Humanitarian Corridors Act. Section 1617 of the bill will limit assistance to those countries that restrict the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance. I introduced the Humanitarian Corridors Act and offered the entirety of that legislation to this bill for a very simple reason: It is wrong, patently wrong, for countries receiving American assistance to keep U.S. humanitarian aid from reaching other countries. Yet this is precisely being done by Turkey, which has been blockading Armenia for several years. Ankara's opening of an air corridor with Armenia last summer indeed was a step in the right direction, but it does not represent a remedy for the problem. Turkey still refuses to open land routes through its territory for the delivery of badly needed United States humanitarian assistance to Armenia, which creates an unacceptable situation. The MacBride principles, another very, very important set of principles that for years we have been trying to get enacted into law, Mr. Speaker, section 1615 of the bill includes language that guarantees United States assistance programs in Northern Ireland will only go towards projects that do not engage in religious discrimination and which provide employment opportunities for members of the region's Catholic minority. Some of us in Congress have been fighting, as I said, for these principles for many years. It has been a bipartisan effort. We have the opportunity to codify that this evening. Chairman Gilman, I think, deserves particular credit for his tenacity for steering this important human rights provision through this legislation and including it. Refugee protection, the refugee provisions, Mr. Speaker, of H.R. 1561 will prevent the United States tax dollars from being spent to return to Vietnam and Laos thousands of men and women who served side by side with the American forces during the Vietnam war. These provisions will also restore the Reagan and Bush policy of protecting people who can show that they are fleeing forced abortion or forced sterilization or they have actually been subjected to such cruel measure, such as the women who are now being held in California and in other parts of the country. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1561 would also require periodic reports to Congress on what Fidel Castro is doing to enforce his end of the Clinton-Castro immigration deal of 1994 and how people are treated who are returned to Cuba pursuant to the second Clinton-Castro immigration deal of May of 1995. Despite the need for cuts, Mr. Speaker, in international broadcasting and other public diplomacy programs, H.R. 1561 holds harmless two of our freedom broadcasting programs, such as Radio Free Asia and Radio and TV Marti. The bill also requires, when cuts must be made, they must not fall disproportionately on broadcasts to countries, such as Iran and Iraq, where people do not enjoy freedom of information within their own country. The bill also requires that Radio Free Asia commences its broadcasts into China, Vietnam, North Korea, Burma, and other countries whose people do not enjoy freedom and democracy, as we all know so well, within 6 months. No more delays; it is about time this important broadcasting got up and running. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, and I believe it is a very, very comprehensive conference report. As I think Members know, there were objections made by the other body when it came to the foreign aid section. That has been taken out of this bill, so we are talking basically about consolidation and about reauthorizing many of our important programs like USIA, the State Department refugee assistance. I urge support for the rule.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Lowey amendment, which strikes language in the bill that protects States from being forced to alter their State laws or constitutions to pay for abortions. We defeated this motion last August and I urge defeat of it again today. At least 12 States have been sued by the abortionists because of the administration's twisted interpretations of the 1993 Hyde amendment, which Members should recall allowed but did not require taxpayer funding for abortions in cases of rape and incest. A dozen more States acquiesced rather than face litigation from the abortion industry. The Clinton order has had some disastrous consequences in some States. For example, in Arkansas the people voted and approved a State constitutional amendment endorsed by then Gov. Bill Clinton to prohibit State funding of abortion except to save the life of the mother. A Federal judge, however, has set aside the entire constitutional amendment because in the view of the judge it conflicts with Federal law, thus ordering that State to pay for abortions on demand. I do not think anybody wants to be part of that, having that State being forced to underwrite and subsidize the cost for all abortions. The Clinton order has also invalidated the State laws of Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming that contained a requirement that rape or incest be reported to a law enforcement agency. I happen to believe that that is a modest request when the death of the baby is being procured. We should be trying to apprehend and hopefully prosecute these people who commit these heinous crimes of rape, rather than let them get off the hook in terms of the reporting requirement. I would hope all States that have any kind of rape or incest would have that kind of requirement. These have been nullified by the Clinton order.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow on February 2, my parents, Bern and Kay Smith, will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. For our family and friends this will be an historic milestone filled not only with enormous happiness and joy, but gratitude, as well. My parents' love for each other, and for my two older brothers and me, was always strong, an absolutely sure thing, never in question. They always had our best interest at heart. In raising us, we always knew they were raising their three sons not just for this life on earth, but for eternity with God. The bond of love was strong for their own parents, my dad's brother Gil and his daughter Sue--who was like a daughter to them and a sister to us--and my mother's nine brothers and sisters. Conceding up front that mere words are inadequate in expressing the depth and breadth of our feelings, mom and dad, here are three letters from your three sons And mom, a letter from dad. Katherine J. Holl and Bernard H. Smith How do we label fifty years of marriage? Is it an event, an achievement, a celebration, a milestone, survival of the fittest, a bit of luck or just plain true love? The answer probably lies somewhere within all of these concepts and more. It is difficult to accurately and to adequately describe my Mom and Dad, Kay and Bern. My first recollection of them begins at their wedding in February 1946. I insisted that I attended and can prove it by merely viewing pictures and scenes from their 16mm movie films. Of course the ``me'' was my 12 year old uncle, but nonetheless I continue to assert otherwise. Growing up in the Smith home was never dull. Adventure is a good description for those times. Mom and Dad were intimately involved in our lives. Their love nurtured and encouraged without smothering. Reassurance and challenge were always present. They were always there for us. They gave us room to grow and were ready to support and comfort their boys. If there is an ideal childhood then certainly we had one. The lessons of life were taught by example through an exquisite balance of firmness, fairness and fun. Opportunities of many varieties were provided, shared and celebrated. Success of one was joy for all. Adversity was met directly and, ultimately, viewed as a learning experience to prepare us for the future. Mom the Club Scout Den Mother, Dad the little league coach, both the homework ``checkers'' have left their imprint on us. That these acorns did not fall far from the tree is evidenced by the Smith boys' character and individual traits. All different yet each possessing the basic core values Mom and Dad lived. We are the fruit of their love and labor. Although their lives revolved around us they ensure their love and happiness was rooted in each other. They believed in their families and showed us the treasures in grandparent, uncles, aunts and cousins. We were fortunate to have so many. Kay and Bern's friends over these last fifty years are too numerous to list and there are always more being added to the fold. Wherever they live, travel or `hang out' some new acquaintances emerge, most become friends. The strength we know was and is felt by many. Their generosity and friendliness is well renowned. They have known tough times in their fifty years and after each have emerged stronger in their love for each other. Kay and Bern live life vigorously, content in their past while expectantly anticipating the future. To be their son is a supreme gift from God. To live up to and emulate their greatness is a difficult task to achieve yet a goal worthy of the quest. Mom and Dad made it simpler because they gave us the template for success and are always there to pick us up and `point our heads' in the right direction. I think the answer to my question on how to describe Kay and Bern's fifty years of marriage is rather simple. How beautiful and wonderful they are . . . my Mom and Dad are an everlasting, unending love story. Happy Anniversary! Mick.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in October 1994 the Prime Minister of Russia and the Prime Minister of Moldova signed an agreement according to which Russian military forces would leave Moldovan territory by October 1997. Last April, the Russian Duma approved a resolution opposing the 3-year withdrawal agreement. The Russian Government has stated its intention to live up to the agreement but little progress has been made. At present about 4,000- 4,500 Russian troops stationed in as many as eight garrisons in eastern Moldova, known as Transdniestria. These are the vestiges of the former Soviet 14th Army which once had troops stationed throughout Moldova and the Odessa Military Region in Ukraine. The Russian Army has essentially maintained its force strength in the region, and troops have even been sent to Moldova to replace those that have been demobilized. Mr. Speaker, Moldova is the only former Soviet Republic upon which Russian troops are still stationed without permission of the host government, and Moldovan officials have raised this issue at several international meetings. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the administration has consistently supported the withdrawal of Russian forces from Moldova. During his meeting with Moldovan President Snegur last year, President Clinton made clear that the United States expects the 1994 agreement to be implemented on time. With respect to the international community, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the United Nations have passed resolutions calling for the removal of the Russian military forces. As part of the recent vote of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly that recommended Russian accession to the Council of Europe, an amendment was included that Russia should ratify the October 1994 agreement within 6 months. In view of this situation, I--along with Mr. Wolf, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Hoyer, and Mr. Durbin--am introducing a resolution calling upon the Government of the Russian Federation to adhere to the provisions of the withdrawal agreement signed on October 21, 1994. The resolution further urges the Secretary of State to use every appropriate opportunity and means, including multilateral and bilateral diplomacy, to secure removal of Russian military forces from Moldova. In addition, this resolution calls upon Moldova's neighbors to recognize its territorial integrity and notes the efforts of the OSCE and the Government of Ukraine to assist in resolving issues that have arisen in Transdniestria, including the withdrawal of the Russian forces. Mr. Speaker, I would stress that this resolution does not ask the Russian Government to do anything to which it has not already agreed. It merely underscores the concern of Congress and the American people for the implementation of international law and for the easing of potential conflict in Europe. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, Let me begin by thanking Chairman Tom Bliley for truly going the extra mile today; for his willingness to understand and address issues that are so vital to some of our States. I especially want to thank Mr. Bliley for the statesmanlike approach embodied in this compromise in meeting the legitimate needs of our colleagues intent on restricting the flow of waste into their States. And special thanks to Chairman Mike Oxley--in the House no one has worked as tenaciously as he on interstate waste legislation. And finally, special thanks to Chairman Jerry Solomon, who has worked hard to facilitate this bill. After 20 months of toil and good faith compromises by all sides of the issue, we are here today with a modest, extremely narrow, rescue bill for locales throughout the country who have waste management systems predicated on flow control and tied to public debt. Over $20 billion of public bonds and obligations of local communities and investors are today in grave jeopardy and desperately need this solution we are proposing. Our local governments--charged with managing their waste--are in desperate situations warranting immediate action. The festering crisis dictates that we wait no more and fast-track this emergency debt protection remedy. For communities across the country--who saw a legislative remedy vanish in the waning hours of the 103d Congress, a casualty of a failed UC request in the Senate--this is their only hope. Make no mistake, this legislation does not establish a broad authority for flow control. Instead it prescribes a narrow grant of authority and phases out of such activity allowing communities to make a smooth transition and ensuring that investments in public projects do not go belly up. Under the bill flow control is permitted for the limited purpose of paying off outstanding bonds and that is it. According to the EPA, less than 20 percent--one-fifth--of the solid waste market is expected to receive some type of protection under this flow control bill. And as each day passes, and municipalities pay off their bonds, this small share of the market will continue to diminish until it reaches zero. No one likes it when rules of the game change in midstream. The Carbone decision vitiated waste flow authority after States and local governments had devised comprehensive waste management plans--at the behest of the Federal Government--which relied on that authority to make the plan economically viable. In other words, decisions were made and funds expended or obligated based on assumptions that disappeared on May 16, 1994--the date the Carbone opinion was handed down. In the post-Carbone world, communities still have the responsibility to manage garbage--that is: collect, treat, and dispose of it--but some may no longer have the tools to carry it out efficiently. Flow control has been a difficult issue for the past 2 years because local governments and private industry have different opinions on how much of flow control is a good thing. State and local government organizations have historically supported the continuation of flow control authority as an important prerogative of State and local government and the best tool for safe and environmentally sound disposal of garbage. Members of the private waste industry believe there should be no constraints on the movement of waste. The bill before us today has opted for the private enterprise position--prohibiting any future flow control. The bill is drafted as an extremely narrow grandfather--allowing flow control only in jurisdictions that exercised it, designated the waste facility to receive the waste, and sold bonds--or executed put-or-pay contracts--to finance the facility--all prior to the Carbone decision. And once the bonds are paid off, with the narrow exception of retrofits mandated under the Clean Air Act, flow control ends forever. Importantly, because these flow control provisions are so narrow, they have achieved support from significant stakeholders on this issue: the national organizations representing State and local government interests, such as the National Association of Counties and the Solid Waste Association of North America; major companies from the waste industry, such as Waste Management Technologies, Inc. and Browning Ferris Industries; and the Public Securities Association, representing the concerns of bond holders and issuers. While all of them have a different bill of perfection in mind, they have reached a compromise that they can live with. The situation in my home county of Mercer illustrates how urgent the situation is. At present, Mercer has incurred debt obligations of over $189 million to finance the project, with approximately $100 million more needed for completion of the project. Carbone has put the entire undertaking on the shelf and costs to build the waste-to-energy facility have increased by over $4 million. Accordingly to Mercer County executive, Bob Prunetti, each day of irresolution of this issue costs an additional $20,000 per day. In the 20 months that we have been debating the perfect flow control and interstate provisions, Mercer County's bonds have been downgraded and, last week on January 25, permits for the construction of our facility expired. The authority has petitioned the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection for an extension of this permit. It is unclear, at this time, whether or not there is precedence for such an extension. My State with our landfills nearing full capacity and with more than 2.1 million tons exported per year to other States has attempted to act responsibly and earnestly to resolve our waste disposal problems and become self-sufficient. My county of Mercer exports 300,000 tons to Bucks County, PA, just across the river. If we are able to proceed with our waste-to-energy project at least 220,000 tons of municipal sold waste will stay in Mercer County to be incinerated. That, it seems to me, nips the problem at the source. And let me remind Members that self-sufficiency has been our goal for 20 years and flow control was--is--the requisite to achieving that goal. Nearly two decades ago, the State of New Jersey took the initiative to limit its exports on its own. The State's comprehensive solid waste management plan is meant to achieve self-sufficiency by the year 2000. But the plan hinges on the use of limited flow control-- without it, it just ain't gonna' happen. And worse, our 2.1 million tons of cross-State waste will only increase. Mercer's bond downgrading has not been unique. Other communities around the Nation especially Pennsylvania, Florida, California, New York, New Hampshire, and Illinois have had their credit ratings downgraded or have been put on credit watch because they have lost the ability to flow control. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress anxious to pass tough interstate restrictions on the transport of garbage, take note: I respectfully submit this is your opportunity to advance that prospect since you will get your day in conference with this legislation. Yet, I am here to tell you that passage of flow control authority by this Congress-- temporarily delinked from interstate--will only help alleviate the need to export garbage. The Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] study on flow control, released last year unequivocally states that: ``Flow control is one mechanism that State and local governments can use to foster development of in-State capacity to manage municipal solid waste.'' To my friends who are disappointed that the interstate provisions will be considered on a day other than today let me say that I have no qualms with limiting interstate waste. There is a symbolic relationship, however that should not be overlooked. If the goal of my friends in the Midwest and Pennsylvania is to ban the interstate transport of waste, then by all means you should support efforts to allow States to flow control waste within their own borders. This, of course, will diminish the urgency to transport garbage outside of the State. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I remind our colleagues that the clock is ticking. I am hopeful that like the Senate, this body will now move on a proposal that offers real relief to communities in debt.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentlewoman if she would just respond. Again, I am a proponent of prospective flow control. We did not win that one. We tried hard. There are a sufficient number of Members who disagree with that that we were unable to get that in there. The compromise that is struck here says that anybody who obligated funds, expended funds, or sold bonds prior to the Carbone decision on May 16, 1994, they are included, they are grandfathered. It is my understanding that those in your locale did so after the fact, after Carbone had been handed down.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I call the attention of my colleagues to one of several deeply disappointing developments in Russia. Deputy Sergei Kovalev, our colleague in the Russian Parliament and longtime human rights activist, resigned his post as head of President Yeltsin's human rights commission earlier this week. Well known to anyone who has followed the course of human rights and democratic development in Russia, Mr. Kovalev was a political prisoner under the Communist regime and he has been highly critical of the Yeltsin government's policies in Chechnya. During the first weeks of the Russian attack on Grozny, the Chechnya capital, Mr. Kovalev bravely travelled to the region to see the facts for himself. For his efforts to stop the killing and terrorizing of both Chechens and Russians, he was roundly condemned and even threatened by fervent Russian nationalists. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kovalev's resignation comes at a time when President Yeltsin appears to be casting off the last of his democratic orientation and throwing in his lot with rapid nationalists, allegedly reformed Communists, and cabinet cronies. Though he talks a reform line, President Yeltsin's actions demonstrate otherwise. In his resignation letter, Sergei Kovalev charges that President Yeltsin's government is ``trying to run the country in a direction completely contrary to the one proclaimed in August 1991.'' This is a very disturbing course for Russia, for its neighbors, and for the entire world. I urge President Yeltsin to return to the path of reform as the only genuine guarantee of peace and justice for Russian people, and Mr. Speaker, I trust the administration is using every appropriate opportunity to make that point to Mr. Yeltsin and his associates. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to have included in the Record Sergei Kovalev's letter of resignation to President Yeltsin. The text of the letter follows, as reprinted in the January 29, 1996 Washington Post. The Case Against Yeltsin (By Sergei Kovalev) (From a letter of resignation sent Jan. 24 to Russian President Boris Yelstin by Sergei Kovalev, who had been chairman of the president's human rights commission since October 1993.) For the past six years I have considered it my duty to promote in every way possible the policy that can fairly be called the ``democratic transformation of Russia'' notwithstanding many reservations. For a long time that policy was closely linked with your name. You were the head of a country on the road to democracy, and at first, you were even considered the leader of the democrats. As long as you remained headed in that direction, I considered myself your ally, or, in those instances when you departed from the overall course or drastically allowed the tempo of advance, a member of the loyal opposition. Russia's road to freedom never promised to be easy. Many difficulties were obvious from the very beginning. Many others cropped up unexpectedly. To overcome them, all of us-- the government, society, each individual--had to make complicated and sometimes tragic decisions. The main things the country expected from you were the will to make changes and honesty. Especially honesty. In electing you, Russia saw not only a politician ready to demolish the former state structure, but a person who was sincerely trying to change himself, his views, his prejudges and his habits of rule. You convinced many--myself included--that humane and democratic values could become the foundation of your life, your work and your policies. We weren't blind. We saw the typical traits of a Communist Party secretary preserved in your behavior. But all Russia, like a man striving to overcome a serious defect, was struggling with itself. We understood you even when we did not love you. In recent years, however, even though you continue to proclaim your undying devotion to democratic ideals, you have it first slowly, and then more and more abruptly, changed the course of government policy. Now your government is trying to turn the country in a direction completely contrary to the one proclaimed in August 1991. . . . Beginning in late 1993 if not even earlier, you have consistently taken decisions which--instead of strengthening the rule of law in a democratic society--have revived the blunt and inhuman might of a state machine that stands above justice, law and the individual. . . . During the tragic days of the fall of 1993 [when Yeltsin dissolved the Supreme Soviet], I decided to stand by you despite my serious inner doubts. I don't deny my responsibility for that support. I believed that the use of force was a tragic necessity given the imminent threat of civil war. Even then I understood that the events of October might encourage the top leaders to perceive force as a convenient and familiar instrument for resolving political problems. But I hoped for a different outcome, that by overcoming the crisis of legitimacy and creating a basis for the rule of law in Russia, the president and the government would do everything possible for our country's peaceful and free development. To a very great extent, the outcome depended on you, Boris Nikolaevich. I believed that you would choose the second path. I was wrong. The 1993 Constitution confers enormous powers on the president, but it also places enormous responsibilities on him to be the guarantor of the rights and liberties of citizens, to safeguard their security and to protect law and order in the country. How have you discharged these duties? How have you fulfilled your responsibilities? You have virtually halted judicial reform, which was designed to make the administration of justice truly independent from the other branches of government. You openly professed the principle, ``Let the innocent suffer as long as the guilty are punished.'' You loudly proclaimed the launching of a war on organized crime. In order to implement this, you granted exceptional, extralegal authority to the security ministries. The result? The criminals continue to roam freely, while law-abiding citizens have to tolerate the abuse of the uniformed forces without gaining the security they were promised. You stated that your goal was the preservation and strengthening of the Russian Federation's territorial integrity. The result? A shameful and bungled civil war which has been raging in the North Caucasus for more than a year. Under the guise of strengthening Russia's defense capability, you've blocked all military reforms which would give Russia an effective modern army. The result? Spending on the army is growing, and the number of generals has increased to an indecent figure. In order to justify their existence, the term of service has been increased and draft deferments have been ended. Meanwhile, soldiers and officers are impoverished, ragged and hungry. And the degradation, ill- treatment and corruption, traditional in our army, are as prevalent as ever. Not surprisingly, tens of thousands of young men are evading this medieval recruitment like the plague. You speak of a policy of openness, of transparency and of public accountability, yet at the same time you sign secret decrees concerning the most important matters of state. You create closed institutions, and you classify as secret ever more information about government operations and the state of the country. Presidential decisions are made almost in the same backroom fashion as in the era of the Politburo. It's no secret that you increasingly depend on the security services and on their system of clandestine information. Isn't it obvious to you how unreliable and tendentious this information is? The thrust of your personnel policy is becoming clearer with each passing day. At first there were quite a few competent, honorable people around you. But you also enthusiastically welcomed individuals whose only virtue consisted in their personal loyalty to you. Gradually such loyalty has become your primary demand when recruiting staff, just as it was in the heyday of the Community Party. . . . You began your democratic career as a forceful and energetic crusader against official deceit and party disposition, but you are ending it as the obedient executor of the will of the power-seekers in your entourage. You took an oath to build a government of the people and for the people, but instead you have built a bureaucratic pyramid over the people and against the people. Moreover, having rejected democratic values and principles, you haven't stopped using the word ``democracy'' so that naive people may well believe that ``democrats'' remain in power in the Kremlin. Your policies have compromised the very word, and if democracy is fated to someday exist in Russia (and I believe it will), it will exist not because of you, but in spite of you.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer a resolution advocating a peaceful end to the conflict between the Turkish Government and Kurdish militants. The ongoing war undermines the very foundations of both the Turkish State and our bilateral relations and its persistence challenges the desires of the United States and Turkish Governments to establish a secure, long-term relationship. For the sake of the people of Turkey, the end of the conflict will strengthen Turkish democracy, help eliminate the scourge of terrorism, resuscitate a shaky economy and promote regional stability. Mr. Speaker, Turkey is home to half of the world's 25 million Kurds and has experienced 28 Kurdish uprisings in the past century. Since 1984, more than 20,000 people have died in clashes among security forces, the Kurdistan Workers Party [PKK] and shadowy Moslem fundamentalist groups. In the past 3 years, security forces forcibly evacuated or destroyed more than 2,650 villages in southeast Turkey and displaced more than 3 million people. Villagers have been rounded up by security officials and subjected to beatings, mass arrests and intimidation. Death squads, believed connected to security forces and fundamentalists, have been responsible for hundreds of extrajudicial killings and disappearances. PKK fighters have also snuffed out the lives of innocent civilians. Each month there are reports of individuals killed in detention and torture remains widespread in cases involving political charges. Eight southwestern Turkish provinces are under a constant state of emergency authorizing local authorities to curb political and media activity. Mr. Speaker, successive Turkish Governments have viewed the PKK solely as a terrorist phenomenum undermining its sovereignty and dividing the country along ethnic lines. The Government has dismissed as propaganda recent PKK statements renouncing violence and separatism and calling for peaceful and lasting political solutions. Turkey's Government has given the military free reign in responding to the PKK, and its heavy-handed approach has also stifled legitimate Kurdish political voices. Mr. Speaker, in southeastern Turkey, citizens are often forced to choose between supporting the guerrillas and risking violent reprisal by Turkish security--or not helping and facing equally harsh PKK retribution. Locals believed to be sympathetic to Turkish authorities have been executed by the PKK. Eleven years of violence has polarized Turks and Kurds and threatens to rend Turkish society along ethnic lines. Kurds, resentful of military abuses, become more supportive of the PKK. Turks, angered by the costs and brutality of terrorism, become increasingly intolerant of the rights of Kurdish citizens. Mr. Speaker, no one disputes Turkey's key role in preserving U.S. strategic, political and economic interests in a critical region. However, the inability of successive Turkish Governments to resolve the Kurdish crisis remains an obstacle to improved ties and enables persistent human rights problems to stunt Turkey's democratic development. The time has come for Turkey's true friends and supporters to call on all sides in the conflict to abandon violence and settle their differences peacefully, democratically and within the framework of the territorial unity of the Republic of Turkey. Following recent elections, Turkey's Government finds itself in a state of protracted paralysis. Observers believe that any new government is unlikely to offer substantially new approaches to the Kurdish issue because of prevailing nationalist sentiments and the possibility of new elections in the near future. Additionally, Turkey's military supports the war in southeast Turkey, although its approach has failed to do anything but foster local support for the PKK. Mr. Speaker, I have learned from our experiences dealing with the PLO and Israel, the ANC and South Africa, and the IRA and Britain, that the longer it takes to begin reconciliation, the harder it becomes to look beyond the bloodshed and suffering. Mr. Speaker, violence will not resolve this conflict. The time for dialog is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Government has often been instrumental in promoting peace in troubled areas. So too should we demonstrate our commitment to encouraging the resolution of this destructive and bloody conflict. The resolution which I am introducing, along with Mr. Steny Hoyer, ranking minority member of the Helsinki Commission, is an important first step in this direction. I would ask our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this resolution. I ask that the language of the resolution be printed in the Record at this time. H. Con. Res. ______ Whereas armed conflict has existed in southeastern Turkey since 1984, and the entire region has been placed under a state of emergency since 1987; Whereas the human toll of this conflict has been great, with the loss of more than 20,000 lives, the displacement of more than 3,000,000 civilians, and the destruction of more than 2,650 Kurdish villages; Whereas free expression in Turkey is restricted by laws which criminalize nonviolent expression, resulting in the incarceration of journalists, writers, academics, human rights activists, and others as political prisoners; Whereas in the past 2 years, 13 Kurdish members of Turkey's parliament have been removed from office, jailed, or exiled for expressing political opinions or having alleged contacts with the illegal Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK); Whereas Kurdish citizens of Turkey have been denied certain basic political and civil rights such as the right to full and free participation in political life, the right to be educated in their mother language, and the right to freely write and publish materials in the Kurdish language; Whereas the conflict between Kurdish guerrillas and Turkish armed forces has spilled over Turkey's borders and threatens the stability of the region; Whereas the escalating conflict poses grave threats to economic stability and the existing political order and prevents realization of full-fledged democracy; Whereas international and local humanitarian organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, have been denied access to southeastern Turkey; Whereas terrorism poses a grave threat to human rights and violates international law; Whereas Turkey's leaders have made commitments to building a democratic society and have made significant progress in realizing this goal; Whereas the Government of Turkey has acceded to upholding international human rights agreements, including the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and the Helsinki Final Act; Whereas Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, is an important strategic and economic partner of the United States; Whereas long-term strategic and economic interests of the United States are jeopardized by the continuing conflict in Turkey; Whereas after 11 years, Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) guerrilla leaders have offered to lay down their weapons; Whereas a military solution to the Kurdish question in Turkey is not possible, and only a nonviolent political solution can bring peace, stability, full democracy, and prosperity to Turkey; and Whereas such a solution must be sought and implemented within the framework of the territorial unity of the Republic of Turkey: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that-- (1) the Government of Turkey should immediately release all political prisoners and lift restrictions on free expression and thereby enable all Turkish citizens, including those of Kurdish origin, to enjoy the political and cultural rights of peoples in all democratic countries; (2) the President should take every opportunity to encourage the Government of Turkey to initiate steps to end the armed confrontation in that country; (3) the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) should declare a cease-fire and restate support for resolution of the conflict through democratic means and within the framework of the territorial unity of the Republic of Turkey; (4) the Government of Turkey should declare a cease-fire and reaffirm a foundation upon which its Republic is based: ``Peace at home. Peace in the world''; (5) upon cessation of hostilities, the International Committee of the Red Cross and other appropriate humanitarian and monitoring organizations should be given access to southeastern Turkey; (6 ) the Government of Turkey should take steps to further reduce the potential for future confrontation, including-- (A) allowing all political parties committed to nonviolence to participate in Turkish political life; (B) repealing the state of emergency in southeastern Turkey; (C) dismantling the paramilitary ``village guard'' system; (D) lifting all constraints on the dissemination in the Kurdish language of television and radio broadcasts, print, music, and other media; (E) allowing schools to offer instructions in the Kurdish language; and (F) establishing consultative mechanisms to defuse sources of conflict and propose strategies to resolve current crisis in southeastern Turkey; and (7) the President should support providing technical assistance to carry out paragraphs (1) through (6).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to express my solid support for language contained in H.R. 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act, providing for the extradition of indicted war criminals from the United States to the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the Hague. This legislation provides the legal basis for the surrender of such persons and closes a technical loophole which could undermine efforts to prosecute those responsible for the commission of war crimes. Adoption of this provision should serve as an example to other countries to undertake similar action consistent with our obligations to cooperate fully with the important work of the Tribunal. To date more than 50 individuals from the former Yugoslavia have been indicted, including the Bosnian Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. Last November, I had an opportunity to meet with Chief Prosecutor Richard Goldstone to discuss his on-going investigations. He stressed that those responsible for war crimes must be held personally accountable, regardless of their relationship to peace negotiations. As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I urge my colleagues to demonstrate their firm commitment to the pursuit of justice in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda by passing this implementing legislation and ensuring that the Tribunal receives the resources it needs to accomplish the vital tasks it has been given. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the text of a letter to the President on this matter be included in the Record. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Washington, DC, February 8, 1995. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: As members of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, we have been following with great concern all aspects of the former Yugoslavia's violent disintegration. In this regard, our Commission held a hearing on January 31, at which we received compelling testimony from the Bosnian Prime Minister, Haris Silajdzic. Although the Prime Minister raised a number of issues regarding the crisis, we would like to focus on one issue in particular: the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. After overcoming considerable barriers to its establishment and staffing, the Tribunal issued its first indictment in early November, is proceeding with investigations and is expected to bring cases to trial later this year. We understand that the Tribunal's UN budget will be under review during the second half of this month and that officials from the Tribunal have requested a $28 million budget for the coming year to proceed with the work they have begun. Non-governmental experts have already suggested that this figure may be too low given the costs of gathering testimony from the thousands of victims of, and witnesses to, war crimes and in light of the on-site investigations that the effective prosecution of war criminals will require. Nevertheless, it appears that securing even these funds may be an uphill battle with the UN bureaucracy. We urge you to instruct the U.S. delegation to the United Nations to press vigorously at these upcoming budget meetings to ensure adequate funding for the Tribunal. The establishment of this body, in spite of considerable political resistance and technical complications, is a credit to strong U.S. leadership. But, without proper funding, the Tribunal will never be able to execute the historic tasks that have been set for it. We also support an additional voluntary contribution to the Tribunal by the United States of an amount not less than the $3 million cash contribution provided last year. Monetary, as well as personnel or other in-kind donations, enhance the ability of the United States to foster the effectiveness of the Tribunal by strengthening specific aspects of its work. In addition, this would enable the United States to play a leadership role in urging other UN member states to make similar contributions. If the United States, at this juncture, inexplicably reduces the level of financial support it has provided to the Tribunal, it might send a regrettable signal of weakening U.S. resolve to see war criminals held truly accountable. We would also like to take this opportunity to raise the issue of implementing legislation. UN member states are already bound as a matter of international law to deliver to the Hague persons indicted by the Tribunal. But most countries--including the United States--will require the passage of implementing legislation to ensure that a national legal basis exists for doing so; without such legislation, a technical loophole would exist in most countries that would give indicted persons the legal grounds to challenge jurisdiction and avoid trial. Convinced of the importance of this issue, a bipartisan U.S. delegation to the 1994 CSCE Parliamentary Assembly achieved agreement to review, at future meetings of the Assembly, steps that the CSCE (now OSCE) participating States have taken to ensure that they are able to comply with the orders of the Tribunal. As Members of Congress, we feel a special responsibility to ensure that the necessary implementing legislation is passed. It is possible that some countries--states likely to find themselves with war criminals in their territories--will need international prodding if they are to cooperate with the Tribunal. Passage of U.S. implementing legislation will enable our country to foster compliance by others. We understand that the Department of Justice has been working on draft implementing legislation for over a year. We urge you to communicate to the Department of Justice the high degree of urgency that you, as President, attach to the tasks of bringing war criminals to justice and of taking concrete legislative measures to that end. To follow up on the Commission's inquiry of April 1994, we would like to know when the administration anticipates presenting such legislation to Congress. Finally, we again call for the appointment of a CSCE (OSCE) Special Reapporteur on the War Crimes, Tribunal, a Commission proposal that was endorsed at the 1994 meeting of the CSCE Parliamentary Assembly. A Special Rapporteur would be tasked with monitoring the participating States' required cooperation with the Tribunal and reporting back to the decision-making bodies of the OSCE for further action in cases of willful noncompliance. We understand that the U.S. delegation to the 1994 CSCE (OSCE) Budapest Conference included this proposal in a package of ideas addressing the many urgent crises in the former Yugoslavia but that, regrettably, this package was not adopted. We urge the United States to pursue the adoption of this proposal as a priority matter at the on-going OSCE meetings in Vienna, where negotiations on Bosnia-related questions continue. Mr. President, we cannot sufficiently underscore our conviction that holding war criminals accountable for the heinous crimes they have committed in this conflict will be an essential element for any long-term resolution of this tragedy. To this end, we look forward to hearing from you on these matters. Sincerely, Christopher H. Smith, Chairman. Alfonse D'Amato, Co-Chairman. Steny H. Hoyer, Member of Congress.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, this vote presents us with an immediate opportunity to reopen a large and important part of our Government. If the House and the Senate votes to override the President's veto, we can have our embassies and our passport offices and our freedom broadcasting operations back at full strength tomorrow morning. In all of the publicity about the Government shutdown, what gets lost is that many of the most essential Government services, the ones that Americans miss the most, like national parks, museums, passports, VA mortgages, are suspended, even though the Republican Congress has passed various appropriation bills to keep them open. President Clinton vetoed each and every one of these bills, complaining that the multi- billion-dollar spending levels were too low. In the CJS bill, provisions covering the State Department and related agencies, only two major items, international organizations and peacekeeping, are substantially lower than the 1995 figures. The House, I might add, supported higher numbers both in the authorization bill which went through my subcommittee, and we met the President and gave him exactly what he asked for on that.